Children who experienced a repeated event only appear less accurate in a second interview than those who experienced a unique event.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When children have experienced a repeated event, reports of experienced details may be inconsistently reported across multiple interviews. In 3 experiments, we explored consistency of children's reports of an instance of a repeated event after a long delay (Exp. 1, N = 53, Mage = 7.95 years; Exp. 2, N = 70, Mage = 5.77 years, Exp. 3, N = 59, Mage = 4.88 years). In all experiments, children either experienced 1 or 4 activity sessions, followed at a relatively short delay (days or weeks) by an initial memory test. Then, following a longer delay (4 months or 1 year), children were reinterviewed with the same memory questions. We analyzed the consistency of children's memory reports across the 2 interviews, as well as forgetting, reminiscence, and accuracy, defined with both narrow and broad criteria. A highly consistent pattern was observed across the 3 experiments with children who experienced a single event appearing more consistent than children who experienced a repeated event. We conclude that inconsistencies across multiple interviews can be expected from children who have experienced repeated events and these inconsistencies are often reflective of accurate, but different, recall. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it